I just read a Weekly Standard article by Bill Kristol http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/711lzwcj.asp to which Andrew Sullivan http://www.andrewsullivan.com linked today. When I got to the part about the "vague Article 3 standards", I decided to, y'know, Google the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). And now I really have to wonder if Kristol's editors, or any of his readers, or even Kristol himself have ever bothered to do that. I wonder which provisions of Article 3 he thinks are "vague"? Would it be the part where "the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"? Or could it possibly be the descriptions of the acts themselves, which include "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"?

Apparently Kristol doesn't expect anyone to notice this discrepancy between Article 3 and his characterization of it. Which makes me wonder: are Weekly Standard readers *always* so easy to manipulate?

But of course, he's just parroting the Bush administration's take on the matter. Any reasonable and reasonably intelligent person would have to agree that Article 3 is perfectly clear about what it prohibits. Therefore, we are left with two possibilities: the Bushies are either (a) stupid, or (b) unreasonable. In the first case, the USA is a laughingstock for electing such a nincompoop. In the second case, we are setting an example of "creative" interpretation of international law that will make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions themselves. If it's not obvious to these guys that such a course is going to come back to bite us in the ass, we're back to case (a): they're stupid.